Upon the invitation of His Holiness Karekin II, SupremePatriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians, His Holiness Kirill I, Patriarch ofMoscow and All Russia arrived in Armenia and the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzinon March 16 for an official visit.

The airplane of His Holiness KirillI, landed at the "Zvartnots" International airport at 15:00. His HolinessKarekin II, and a delegation of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church met thePatriarch of All Russia at the airport.

Mr. Armen Ashotian, Minister ofthe Republic of Armenia Minister of Science and Education as well as Mr.Vyacheslav Kovalenko, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of theRussian Federation to Armenia; Mr. Oleksandr Bozhko, Ambassador Extraordinaryand Plenipotentiary of the Ukraine to Armenia; Mr. Stepan Sukhorenko, AmbassadorExtraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Belarus to Armenia; Mr. Shohrat Jumayev,Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Turkmenistan to Armenia; and Mr.Aiymdos Bozzhigitov, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Kazakhstanto Armenia; came to greet His Holiness Kirill I at the airport.

Following the fraternal embrace of the two Patriarchs, students from theArmenian Church Youth Center presented the traditional welcome of salt and breadto the Patriarch.

The two Heads of the Churches walked through apolice escort to the awaiting welcoming delegation. His Eminence ArchbishopYeznik Petrosian, General Secretary for Inter-church Relations of the ArmenianChurch, introduced the clergy and the ambassadors to the Head of the RussianOrthodox Church.

In the airport, the Pontiff of All Armenians and thePatriarch of All Russia answered questions of the journalists who had gathered.

It was hard for me to skim the book to see how he defined tradition 1, but this is what I found:

Quote:

Quote:

Tradition 1"Scripture is the authority, but it must be interpreted according to the apostolic regula fidei. As noted by G.L. Prestige, "The voice of the Bible could be plainly heard only if its text were interpreted broadly and rationally, in accordance with the apostolic creed and the evidence of the historical practice of Christendom." In a number of historical studies, the church historian Heiko Oberman describes the characteristics of this early patristic position. As he explains, this one source concept of "tradition" has two primary qualities:

1. The immediate divine origin of tradition togther with the insistence on a clearly circumscribed series of historical acts of God in the rule of faith or the rule of truth.

2. The rejection of extra-scriptural tradition.

For the sake of clarity, Oberman terms this "single exegetical tradition of interpreted scripture 'Tradition I'."

page 32 [1]

and this from pages 237-238

Quote:

Quote:

" In the 1980s and early 1990s, a controversy erupted among dispensationalists which came to be referred to as the Lordship Salvation controversy. On one side of the debate were men such as Zane Hodges and Charles Ryrie who taught a reductionistic phrase justification by faith alone and removed it from its overall theological context. Faith was reduced to little more than assent to the truthfulness of certain biblical propositions. Repentance, sanctification, submission to Christ's Lordship, Love, and perseverance were all said to be unnecessary for salvation. Advocates of this position claimed that it was the classical Reformation position taught by Martin Luther and John Calvin. On the other side of the debate was John MacArthur who argued that these men were clearly abandoning the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone. In addition to the books written by the primary dispensationalist participants, numerous Reformed theologians wrote books and articles criticizing this alteration of the doctrine of sola fide. A heated theological controversy began which continues in some circles even to this day.

Ironically, a similar drastic alteration of the classical Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura has occured over the last 150 years, yet this has caused hardly a stir among the theological heirs of the Reformation, who have usually been quick to notice any threatening move against the Reformed doctrine of justification. So much time and effort has been spent guarding the doctrine of sola fide against any perversion or change that many do not seem to have noticed that the classical and foundational Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura has been so altered that is virtually unrecognizable. In its place Evangelicals have substituted an entirely different doctrine. Douglas Jones has coined the term soloscriptura to refer to this aberrant Evangelical version of sola scriptura."

[2] pages 237-238

If there was anything I left out by Keith in regards to tradition 1.....please feel free to correct me or fill in the gaps.

This is what he says about Tradition 0:page 123

Quote

Quote:

"These Radical Reformers insisted that not only was Scripture the sole infallible authority, but that it was the sole authority altogether. Secondary authorities such as the Church, the regula fidei, and the fathers were considered irrelevant at best. All that was necessary, according to these men, was the individual and his Bible. Each individual had the right to interpret the Scripture by himself and for himself."

[3] page 123

and

pages 125-126Quote:

Quote:

"Finally a word must be said about the rationalist wing of the Radical Reformation. there were a number of men at this time who so elevated the role of reason and the right of the individual to interpret Scripture apart from the communion of saints and the ancient rule of faith that they rejected several aspects of traditional orthodox theology. Faustus Socinus, for example, rejected the doctrines of the diety of Christ, the Trinity, the atonement, original sin, predestination, and the resurrection of the body.It would certainly be an oversimplification to argue that all of these various men and movements shared a common understanding of scriptural authority. It wouldbe grossly unfair, for example, to suggest that either Conrad Grebel or Menno Simons shared the theological views of Socinus or Servetus. Not all of these men were anti-Trinitarians. And not all of these men were apocalyptic revolutionaries. What they did have in common, although to varying degrees, was a radicalization of the principle of sola scriptura and a rejection of tradition in any form. As Mcgrath explains:

the magisterial Reformers adopted a positive approach to tradition, particularly the testimonia patrum, whereas the radicals, the fathers were an irrelevance in whatever manner seemed right to him or her.

Unlike the magisterial Reformers, who had sought to maintain a continuity with the ancient patristic Church, the radicals believed that they could do theology without reference to what the Church had confessed in the past. They believed that the magisterial Reformers had not gone far enough in their use of the sola scriptura principle. According to the radicals, the magisterial Reformers may have done away with many of the scholastic theological accretions, but they wrongly insisted on adhering to the creedal formulations of ancient Christianity.Building on Oberman's terminology, Alister Mcgrath refers to the Anabaptist concept of Scripture and tradition as "Tradition - 0 a view which allows no role whatsoever to tradition. This is in contrast to "Tradition I", the position of the magisterial Reformers, a position which allowed for a traditional interpretation of Scripture."

[4] pages 125-126

So it seems to me that one embraces at least "some" of the early creeds and interpretations of the early church fathers, while the other does not. However in modern times, those who are accused of holding onto "soloscriptura" are open to looking at early creeds and the church fathers, but not when it comes to deciding doctrine nor authoritative when it comes to deciding "what is heresy" and "what is an essential" .......so in modern times it seems as if there is a difference of "emphasis".

Those who hold to Sola scriptura will look to at least "some" of the ancient creeds and early fathers when it comes to "what is heresy" and "what is a christian essential".

The Anglican Dr. Alister Mcgrath, seems to come to a similar conclusion when it comes to the two different views of Sola Scriptura. In his book "Christianity's Dangerous Idea", he shows historically that when it came to the topic of the Arian heresy spreading among the Anabaptists, the magisterial protestants advocated at least some of the ancient creeds:

Quote:"QUOTE:

Quote:

The Problem of Heresy for Protestantism

"Heresy" is one of the most ominous terms in the vocabulary of Christendom. The Christian usage of the word can be traced back to the New Testament itself, where it is used to designate a sect, faction, or grouping (see, for example, Acts 24:5; 28:22). Similarly, the great Jewish historian Josephus applies the term (airesis) to the three religious sects prevalent in Judea in his day: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Esenes. At this stage, the term did not have the strongly negative associations that later developed; these, however, were not long in emerging.

By the second century, "orthodoxy" and "heresy" were emerging as significant ideas. The term "heresy" was used to designate deficient, and potentially vulnerable, understanding of the Christian faith that were to be rejected. The identification of heresy was seen as a corporate judgment by the church that rested on a consensus that such views were unsatisfactory, fallacious, and misleading. Yet it is essential to appreciate that heresies were ultimately unacceptable interpretations of the Bible.

This can be seen by considering the fourth-century movement known as Arianism, widely seen as the most important early Christian heresy. Arius and his followers held that Jesus of Nazerath could not be regarded as divine in any meaningful sense of the word. He was "supreme among God's creatures, "but a creature nonetheless. This doctrine was severely criticized by writers such as Athanasius of Alexandria for undermining the internal coherence of the Christian faith. Yet both Arius and Athanasius based their ideas on substantially the same biblical texts, which they interpreted in different ways.

The essence of heresy can therefore be located in flawed biblical interpretation. But who decided which biblical interpretations are flawed and which are orthodox? If all Christians have the right to interpret the Bible as they see fit, how can heresy be identified. let alone combated? If the Bible alone is the supreme rule of faith, how can any authority beyond that text be recognized as its authoritative interpreter? It is at this point that the distinctive approach of Protestantism encounters a seemingly formidabled obstacle, in that it seems to undermine the very idea of an authoritative interpretation of the Bible-in other words, the notion of orthodoxy.

This already significant problem was made acute by the unusual social and intellectual conditions of the sixteenth century, catalyzed by the spirit of inguiry of the Renaissance. This era of science and intelectual restlessness was marked by a determination to explore new options and reevaluate old ones. Some of these were local heterodoxies, whose ideas had little impact at the time, even though they may have caused frissons of intellectual anxiety. Among those, we may include the Italian village miller Domenico Scandella from the mountain village of Montereale, who took the view that the world arose from chaos, just as "cheese is made out of milk, and worms appeared in it, and these were the angels." A surge of alternative viewpoints emerged, posing a powerful challenge to the religious and political stability of late Renaissance Europe. The authorities, political and religious, did what they could to limit their impact by branding such ideas as magic or heresy. Among these new movement, of course, was Protestantism itself-or perhaps we should say, many of the various tributaries that flowed into its vortex.From its outerset, Protestantism was branded as a heresy by the Catholic church. Protestants responded with indignation, retorting that they had recovered orthodoxy from its medieval distortions. What was Protestantism if not the recovery of the orthodox faith of the early church? Yet Catholics had little difficulty in arguing that, while Protestantism might be perfectly capable of recovering earlier biblical interpretations, it lacked the means to determine whether it had retrieved was orthodox or heterodox. And lacking any such capacity to discriminate between such interpretations, Protestants were obligated to repeat the judgments of the Catholic church on these matters. In their turn, Protestants argued that, since they were committed to restoring the authentic teaching of the early church, this naturally extended to its views on orthodoxy and heresy. In the end, the arguments were not decisive. However, the debate highlighted the potential danger for Protestantism arising from competing biblical interpretations. Who had the right to decide which were orthodox and which heretical?This led to a further difficulty as divisions emerged within Protestant constituencies. Itself partly a consequence of the intellectual ferment of the Renaissance, Protestantism found that it could not check this innovative and critical tendency within its own ranks. It had merely been relocated, not neutralized. One particular difficulty was the rise of anti-trinitarianism in Italian Protestant circles, a movement that rapidly gained a following in northern Europe. For Juan de Valdes and others, the doctrine of the Trinity was simply not to be found in the Bible, nor could it be defended on biblical grounds. Protestants who were faithful to the Bible not only were therefore under no obligation to accept this doctrine but had a responsibility to challenge it as a distortion of biblical truth. Forced out of Italy by the Inquisition, many anti-trinitarians settled in the independent republic of the Grisons in southeast Switzerland, where their influence upon Reformed Protestantism began to grow.In this case, Protestantism was able to deal with such heterdox trends by appealing to the consensus of faith of the church, as set out in the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Christianity as a whole had declared such teachings to be heretical; Protestantism thus endorsed this pattern of traditional teaching and, in doing so, rejected anti-triniterianism as heretical. But what of other dissident voices within Protestantism that urged teachings that had never been declared heretical in the past by the church as a whole but were nevertheless regarded with intense animosity within certain sections of the movement?" [5] pages 227-229

Reformed protestantism isn't united when it comes to the views of Keith A. Mathison and his book "the shape of Sola Scriptura". Some feel it is too close to Rome.

And a Roman Catholic lay apologist friend of mine feels that the "sola Scripturist acknowledgment of the role of tradition in interpreting the Bible is really nothing more than lip service."

And that "if a Protestant is free to dissent from this or that element of tradition whenever he sees fit -- then ultimately, tradition is no rule of faith at all. In the end, it really is just him and his Bible and he is really no different from the solo scripturist at all. ........... the solo scripturist has simply taken solascriptura to it's logical conclusion."

Eventhough the "rule of faith" version of sola Scriptura is alot closer to us than the Anabaptist one is. What my Roman Catholic friend said very well maybe the case for alot of protestants.......even for those that refuse to admit that Sola Scriptura has more than one interpretation. For the Anabaptists are protestants too, and so their interpretation is just as valid as the magisterial one.........when it comes to the issue of what is and isn't Sola Scriptura.

To say that we deny history as "help" is nonsense. I'm tired of going around in circles.

It seems to me that you only like partial bits of history, here and there only when it agrees with full-preterism or will help someone believe in full-preterism. You don't seem to like it when it goes against full-preterism.

You won't even use it to see that maybe your exegesis or interpretation went wrong somewhere. You will stick with a certain group of people from a certain tradition (mostly Reformed protestant) and play hop scotch with their writtings. Only picking partial stuff from each one like some sort of jigsaw puzzle or salad bowl mix. Then you will rearrange those different pieces and put them together to form some historical bases for full-preterism.

You will ignore what John Gill had to say about the Image of God and man because it goes against the foundation of full-preterism and so you will point to Gordan Clark believing that the Image of God in man was just his soul/spirit.(a gnostic view by the way) You won't stick with Clark when it comes to his views about our Resurrection, the 2nd advent, and his chillistist/pre-mill views......I could be wrong about him being pre-mill.

And so, your plumbline is full-preterism. You will look at history with that bias/bent/angle//presup. And you will pick and choose accordingly.

You will do this with everything.......including the WCF.

Quote:

The WCF makes a clear and great distinction between "rule of faith" vs "helps." It also makes a clear distinction between the councils recorded in scripture versus all others that followed since then. That is my view. Nuff said.

Nuff said? You don't adhere to the WCF! I don't know if you still do, but at one time you use to claim to be Reformed....while still being a full-pret. But full-preterism....shoot even certain forms of partial preterism.....destroys the foundation of the WCF. It totally destroys it. And so, why are you quoting a Reformed protestant document/confession of faith, when you are not even Reformed yourself?

The jig is up Neb! We all know you only pick and choose what you want from it, and so why can't everybody.....who is not a Reformed protestant.....do the same?

Why are you the onlyone who is allowed to pick and choose what you like from the WCF? Why can't all of us nonReformed do it? If we are allowed to do what you do, then I bet you, that we all will pick and choose different things that we like.

Quote:

And to anticipate another common irrational objection...no, I am not logically required to embrace all of the WCF because I embrace that part of it.

Why is that irrational? You don't embrace the WCF period! You are not Reformed! You can't go around playing hop scotch with everything.....taking them out of there original context and into the foriegn context of full-preterism!

I know what you are doing! I knew it last year because I do the samething when it comes to those who still follow David Bercot's ministry. I pick and choose what I like from him to get them to eventually become what I am today.

You ain't fooling anybody Neb! You and I both do the samething.....we just do it with diffferent groups of people. The only difference is I am honest about it. The followers of David Bercot that I talk to all know I am trying to convert them to EO. (not that I can for ultimately it's the Holy Spirit that converts someone) It's no secret! What I do is not on the hush hush with them.

But you won't tell Reformed protestants, and other protestants what you are doing. You quote their stuff to make them think you are Reformed. But you're not!

What I'm saying is this---> We know about the past from records, but the records we do have certainly doesn't mean that's the whole of history.

The Bible didn't record everything either:John 21:25"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

The book of Acts didn't record what the other Apostles did either. Thus, you can't use that which was not recorded as an excuse to dismiss what was recorded.

Scripture shows us that it's not necessary to record everything.

Quote:

Take for instance some of the great wonders of the world. Some archaeologists are still baffled because according to our "RECORDS" the ancient peoples did not have the intelligence or the technology to do it (obviously they did)! Just because we don't have records that they did not have the know-how, tech, etc. doesn't mean they didn't.

You are confusing ones bias/presupp and interpretation with the actual evidence itself.

Quote:

I'm not saying we can't know the past as in "Oh, we'll never know"... what I'm saying is, we can't know it in it's entirety.

Scripture shows us the example that such a thing is not necessary. If you believe that the Providence and Sovereignty of God works through history, then you should also believe that what we have can be trusted at some level/degree......or else we wouldn't have it.

You seem to be saying that we can't trust what we do have because we don't know what we don't have. And so what the known recorded history says doesn't mean a lick.

Quote:

I've read the discussion. The gist of it is, "Did the Apostles do a lousy job of making sure that Truth was promulgated or have cats been missing for some 2,000 years"

The argument is that because kats have been saying the same thing for 2000 years then that means that there is some validity to it (and I understand that). My point, however, is that cats like Polycarp, Augustine, Athanasius, etc. (although they may have been great men), did not constitute what every single Christian thought.

You seem to be missing something here.

Scripture says:1 Corinthians 7:17Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.

1 Corinthians 4:17For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.

2 Timothy 2:2And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

Now note what Tertullian(around 197 A.D....still in his Orthodox years) had to say about the Apostles and the common Faith they preached to the churches: (Tertullian was arguing against the claims and arguments of the heretics Marcion, Apelles, Philumene, Valentinus, Nigidius, and Hermogenes).http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm (Read chapters 20 to 42)

Quote: (from chapter 20)"they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judæa, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality—privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery."

Quote: (from chapter 21)"Chapter 21. All Doctrine True Which Comes Through the Church from the Apostles, Who Were Taught by God Through Christ. All Opinion Which Has No Such Divine Origin and Apostolic Tradition to Show, is Ipso Facto False.From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for “no man knows the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Matthew 11:27 Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach— that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached— in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them— can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches— those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth."

Quote: (from chapter 26)"Much less, when churches were advanced in the faith, would they have withdrawn from them anything for the purpose of committing it separately to some few others. Although, even supposing that among intimate friends, so to speak, they did hold certain discussions, yet it is incredible that these could have been such as to bring in some other rule of faith, differing from and contrary to that which they were proclaiming through the Catholic churches, — as if they spoke of one God in the Church, (and) another at home, and described one substance of Christ, publicly, (and) another secretly, and announced one hope of the resurrection before all men, (and) another before the few; although they themselves, in their epistles, besought men that they would all speak one and the same thing, and that there should be no divisions and dissensions in the church, 1 Corinthians 1:10 seeing that they, whether Paul or others, preached the same things. Moreover, they remembered (the words): “Let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than this comes of evil;” Matthew 5:37 so that they were not to handle the gospel in a diversity of treatment."

From Chapters 27 and 29Quote:"Chapter 27. Granted that the Apostles Transmitted the Whole Doctrine of Truth, May Not the Churches Have Been Unfaithful in Handing It On? Inconceivable that This Can Have Been the Case.Since, therefore, it is incredible that the apostles were either ignorant of the whole scope of the message which they had to declare, or failed to make known to all men the entire rule of faith, let us see whether, while the apostles proclaimed it, perhaps, simply and fully, the churches, through their own fault, set it forth otherwise than the apostles had done. All these suggestions of distrust you may find put forward by the heretics. They bear in mind how the churches were rebuked by the apostle: “O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you?” Galatians 3:1 and, “You did run so well; who has hindered you?” Galatians 5:7 and how the epistle actually begins: “I marvel that you are so soon removed from Him, who has called you as His own in grace, to another gospel.” Galatians 1:6 That they likewise (remember), what was written to the Corinthians, that they “were yet carnal,” who “required to be fed with milk,” being as yet “unable to bear strong meat;” who also “thought that they knew somewhat, whereas they knew not yet anything, as they ought to know.” 1 Corinthians 8:2 When they raise the objection that the churches were rebuked, let them suppose that they were also corrected; let them also remember those (churches), concerning whose faith and knowledge and conversation the apostle “rejoices and gives thanks to God,” which nevertheless even at this day, unite with those which were rebuked in the privileges of one and the same institution.

Chapter 28. The One Tradition of the Faith, Which is Substantially Alike in the Churches Everywhere, a Good Proof that the Transmission Has Been True and Honest in the Main.Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, John 14:26 and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth; John 15:26 grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?

Chapter 29. The Truth Not Indebted to the Care of the Heretics; It Had Free Course Before They Appeared. Priority of the Church's Doctrine a Mark of Its Truth.In whatever manner error came, it reigned of course only as long as there was an absence of heresies? Truth had to wait for certain Marcionites and Valentinians to set it free. During the interval the gospel was wrongly preached; men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptized; so many works of faith were wrongly wrought; so many miraculous gifts, so many spiritual endowments, were wrongly set in operation; so many priestly functions, so many ministries, were wrongly executed; and, to sum up the whole, so many martyrs wrongly received their crowns! Else, if not wrongly done, and to no purpose, how comes it to pass that the things of God were on their course before it was known to what God they belonged? That there were Christians before Christ was found? That there were heresies before true doctrine? Not so; for in all cases truth precedes its copy, the likeness succeeds the reality. Absurd enough, however, is it, that heresy should be deemed to have preceded its own prior doctrine, even on this account, because it is that (doctrine) itself which foretold that there should be heresies against which men would have to guard! To a church which possessed this doctrine, it was written— yea, the doctrine itself writes to its own church— “Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that which we have preached, let him be accursed."

Chapter 30. Comparative Lateness of Heresies."

The picture I see from both Scripture as well as from Tertullian some 100 years after the death of Saint John the Apostle is one of the Apostles teaching doctrine in front of witnesses. In public to the faithfull in all the churches. This is what you are not seeing.

You are making it seem as if the early Church....from the 1st century onward.... had no unity whatsoever. That everyone disagreed about everything. This is what you will have to assume.

I disagree with the idea that there was no unity at all.

Quote:

Let's say that in the year 4000, some kats want to study about what Christians in the 2000s thought... but wait... they can only find a HANDFUL of primary sources from Reformed pastors... but they find a GANG of information from WOF. The people in 4000 AD then conclude that WOF movement was what the majority of what Christians thought---which may have not have been the case.

You are looking at the issue from a different context. You are assuming that the fracture of christianity that we have now was always the same in the past. And thus, you are looking at this issue from that context. Some of the ancient gnostics called themselves christian, and thus the term "christian gnostics". And yes, they did teach a "figurative" resurrection of the dead......just as Kingneb, brandon, full-preterists, and liberal christians do today.

The thing is. I don't call nor consider the ancient gnostics as christian nor would I call certain forms of modern liberal christianity christian.

And so, according to your context. Yes, I would have to agree with you......because of the way you have it set up. I understand your point, but I wouldn't use the same context as you. My context would focus on the actual groups themselves.

In 4,000A.D. if someone wanted to know what Reformed protestantism was, and they only could find a handfull of Reformed pastors, then they will have to base their info on that. And if someone else from that time in the future wanted to find out what WOF was all about in our day, and if they had alot of WOF pastors to go by, then they will have to base their info on that.

This would be my context of your example.

Quote:

Never said he did. My point is, I can name a lot of kats from the WOF who all say the same thing, but that doesn't mean anything.

It means alot. For it would mean, that this is what WOF is. If someone claimed to be WOF but was spittin Reformed doctrine......then that person wouldn't be WOF....you will have to put them in a different group.....the Reformed group.

And so, dispite all the splits we see in christianity. If one of the few common things we see is that our Resurrection from the dead is physical and that the 2nd Advent is still future.......then anyone who claims the opposite can't be christian. They will have to be something else......but christian is something they can't be.

Quote:

I can name a lot of kats from Reformed theology, but that doesn't mean anything.

It means alot. For it would mean, that this is what Reformed theology is. And so, if someone claimed to be Reformed, but was spittin mad WOF doctrine......then that person wouldn't be Reformed. ....you will have to put them in a different group.....the WOF group.

And so, dispite all the splits we see in christianity. If one of the few common things we see is that our Resurrection from the dead is physical and that the 2nd Advent is still future.......then anyone who claims the opposite can't be christian. They will have to be something else......but christian is something they can't be.

Quote:

How many people believed in something or how many prominent teachers who taught something doesn't mean a lick of anything. What is important is---> IS WHAT THEY TAUGHT TRUE?

It would actually mean alot if seen in the right context.

Quote:

History may not be on shaky ground, but it definitely isn't concrete.

It depends on the topic.

Quote:

See that's my point. When it says that everyone did what was right in their own sight, it certainly doesn't mean that everyone was. It just means that the bulk of kats did. Who were they... we don't know a whole lot of 'em. But that doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Did the Apostles do a lousy job? Yes or no

Did the Apostles teach the samething to all the churches? Yes or no

Did the known recorded historical record in regards to the teachings of our Resurrection from the dead and Christ's 2nd coming get it right or wrong? Yes or no

The Apostles didn't teach two opposite things......what did they teach?

Quote:

Just because the history books says the majority believed X, it means just that... the "majority" (not all). But even the majority is based on records. I'm not saying history is completely in disarray... what I'm saying is that there's a margin of error. It's not so black and white.

So the Apostles didn't teach the samething to the churches? Are you saying that the Apostles tought onething to one group but the total opposite to another group?

Quote:

Read any history book and there's a lot of speculation going on. Scholars and PhDs, etc try their best to articulate or interpret the info but that even they have to concede that they don't fully know.

Did the Apostles do a lousy job? Yes or no

What did they teach in regards to this issue?

Is what we have in regards to this issue from known recorded history wrong? Yes or no

Quote:

We know because of records. But the records doesn't constitute as a majority. They can give us a gateway into the key players and who did what or believed what, they can't tell us certain things. Sometimes they can't tell us key information, either.

Scripture shows us that it's not necessary to record everything.

Quote:

I'm not saying we can't know anything. We can't know everything, we can't know everyone, we don't know every view.

So the Apsotles didn't teach the samething to the churches? Is this what you are saying?

Quote:

Every Calvinist didn't agree with everything Calvin said, Every Pentecostal didn't agree with William Seymour. They were just like us. We're here on a forum discussing our differences, just the other believers in the past did before us. Nothing has really changed except for the technology, but essentially we're doing exactly they were doing.

So are you saying that it is impossible to know what Pentecostalism is and isn't? Are you saying it is impossible to know what Reformed protestantism is and isn't?

Is this what you are saying?

Scripture shows that it isn't necessary to record everything.

Quote:

They called kats heretics just like we do. They got into discussions about the Bible just like they did. They weren't so black and white, just like we aren't. So if we're going to form an argument for or against a certain position, while history can be a tool in guiding us, it can't be the only form of evidence.

No one is claiming history as the ONLY form of evidence. I am using both Scripture and history,.....Scripture first, and history second as a subordinate tool. But you don't seem to like it when history is used as a tool to support an interpretation of Scripture.

Quote:

What frustrates me sometimes is that when guys try to articulate their point, they appeal to the Scriptures. But when someone challenges them, they appeal to Church history. But church history is ambiguous at times.

Did the Bible fall from the sky only to land on your lap and your lap only? Yes or no

Did God only speak to you? Yes or no

Quote:

It's funny and saddening to me that two Christians can go to two different "Christian" colleges, take classes in Greek and Hebrew, and after they obtain their PhDs, they have two completely different views. LOL

You can't have it both ways. You can't be frustrated one minute because people are trying to check their interpretation with the interpretations of 2,000 years worth of commentary only to turn around and be frustrated again for people not checking their own interpretations with 2,000 years worth of commentary.

Rick just got done saying that we don't even "know" who wrote the athan. creed! Lol. So even you guys admit that there are unknownables in history.

We don't know with 100% certainty who wrote the book of Hebrews either. That too is an unknowable. Infact, if you dismiss the claims of the early Christians in who wrote what Gospel, then we wouldn't even know who wrote some of the Gospels either.....with 100% certainty. Also, I never claimed that there weren't any "unknowables" in history. The Gospels, the Epistle of Hebrews and the western Athanasius creed at least truly existed in "KNOWABLE HISTORY".

That is totally different than the existence of full-preterists being absent within the Church in Recorded knowable History.

Quote:

History is not an infallible guide.

Who said it was? I never said it was! But it is a guide, and if your view doesn't exist in most of Knowable recorded church history, then that should throw up some red flags that maybe your way of dividing scripture is fallible.

Is the way you interpret Scripture INFALLIBLE? If not, then maybe you can use Knowable recorded church history as a tool to help you correct a faulty exegesis.

Quote:

I'll stick with clark's brilliant analysis on history anyday.

So, Clark's analysis of history was INFALLIBLE?

Quote:

Also, I never said that the apostles did a lousy job, jnorm. Perhaps you should read it again.

I know you didn't say that, but your view will have to lead to that conclusion anyway. Because the Apostles did teach something about the Resurrection, and it was up to the next generation to hold on to what they taught...... and your view wasn't taught by the early christians......instead it was taught by the gnostics......one of their main enemies.

And so, in order for your view to be right, everyone in recorded known history had to become apostate, fell away, got it wrong, forgot.....etc.

Quote:

Lastly, how do you account for various millennial positions, salvation positions, free will debates, and every other schism that occurred early on in the church?

It is because of Knowable recorded church history that we know about all these differences. And so, I accept the reality of it.

What you should be worried about is why your view about the Resurrection shows up among the ancient gnostics in knowable recorded church history? What you should be worried about is why your view of full-preterism shows up pretty late in knowable recorded church history.

You see, your view is a difference too. Your view was debated too. Your view is a schism too. It's just that it was all these things late in time.

Yes the radar shows a marker in history of when something happened.

Just like we can tell how old a tree is by the rings of it's trunk:

We can tell how old a certain biblical interpretation/view is as well. How do we know about the circumcision sect, Sabellianism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Apollinarianism.....etc? How do we know about all this stuff? It is because the debates caused a ripple in Church history. A scar, an imprint!

How do we know about some of the different movements that popped up over time? It is because they left a mark in Church History. It is because the unity of the Church was disturbed by it.

This is why we know about Montanism, Novationism, Ebionites, Donatists.....etc. This is why we know about Tertullian changing for something else in his later years. The same with Tatian. This is why Clement of Alexandria is not considered a Saint among the Eastern Orthodox because we don't know about his life after a certain point in time of persecution. Christians were all up in your business back then.....just as we still are today. So yes, I accept all those difference you mentioned as a reality! It exist in knowable recorded History.

The same is true when it comes to the history of the Baptist church I was raised in. In my time there, the congregation split twice. Those splits are known among the members of that congregation because it disturbed the unity of the faithful there.

And so yes, I accept those things as a reality. Your full-preterism comes late in time, and that is the REALITY of your view.

Quote:

You want to accuse me of saying that the Holy Spirit did a lousy job, but then want to turn right around and speak of this "orthodox faith" that adheres to three opposing eschatological views.

What did Saint Paul say?1 Corinthians 11:19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

1 out of the 3 has to be right. All 3 can't be wrong for there has to be a "they which are approved may be made manifest among you"

But all heresy isn't at the same level of wrongness. Some are more wrong than others. Saint Paul didn't mind the circumcision sect until they started to cause him and his gentile followers problems. He didn't mind those who didn't eat meat until they started to cause his gentile followers problems.

And so, all error isn't equal. Some are more harmful than others. Full-preterism destroys the Faith. Shoot! Even some forms of Partial-Preterism destroys the faith.

Pre-mill doesn't. Eventhough my Church rejects pre-mill.....they are very lenient or soft handed when it comes to the error. The only difference I can see between Eastern Amill and pre-nicene pre-mill is the 1,000 year reign and the super foods and other carnal things within that reign. And this is why it was easy for me to switch. I really didn't have to change that much.

Quote:

And then Rick tries to cover it up as though these serious differences did not exist. If amill is the biblical view, "where was the spirit" when premillennialism and postmill showed up?

Amill existed along with Pre-mill. I have to review, but you start to see people arguing against pre-mill around 200A.D.

Caius from Rome, argued against the view, and he lived around 215 A.D.

Origen and Dionysius from Alexandria both fought against the view.Origen lived from 185 A.D. to about 255 A.D.And Dionysius was ordained a Bishop around 247 A.D. and he mentioned that there were people before his time, that rejected the book of Revelations.

The book of Revelations had a hard time being accepted in the christian East....which is ironic for it came from the East. It was immediately embraced by the christian west. The west, had a hard time embracing/accepting the book of Hebrews. But eventually the West made the East embrace Revelations, and the East made the West embrace Hebrews.

But to answer your question....Acts chapter 15 shows us how the Church solves some disputes.

Quote:

Where was this "leads into truth", inspired 3rd century classroom of yours

In the book of Acts, we see how the Apostles handled the circumcision party dispute.Acts 15:28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:

You have beef with councils, but gathering to solve disputes is Scriptural.

1st Corinth 6:1-21 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

Quote:

My explanation is quite simple. THE standard, the ONLY INFALLIBLE standard for what constitutes "Christianity" is the word of God, period. What John, Jim, or any 2nd, 3rd generation "bishop" does with that text has no more weight than what Rick of 2010 does with it.

If I must talk about INFALLIBLE Authority, then the only INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

It was God that Inspired Scripture, and it's God that leads the Church into all truth.

It seems like to me that your only standard is your flawed interpretation. You are only hiding behind Scripture as a smoke screen.You refuse to admit that maybe....just maybe....you took a wrong turn in your exegesis. Instead of going right you went left, somewhere along the process, and instead of checking yourself for errors you are sticking your nose up and blaming most of known recorded church history for being wrong.

I find it strange that you will pick and choose a side when it comes to christians being divided on an issue, but you refuse to side with christians when they are actually united on something.

Quote:

What does the TEXT say....God, via his revelation, determines "orthodoxy", not some majority vote by a bunch of people who arbitrarily decide what is "important" or not.

This is what the text says:1.Jude 1:3"Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints."

1 Corinthians 11:19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

1 John 2:27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

John chapter 17:"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

Acts 15:28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:

and

2 Timothy 21You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. 3Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

Did Saint Timothy do a Lousy job? I say no! In order for you to be right, the earlychristians who taught that our Resurrection was physical had to be wrong. All the people in whom Timothy taught and discipled had to get it wrong.

1 Corinthians 6:14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.

Saint Paul used the word dead only once here. Last month, you and Brandon tried to make our "Resurrection" something different from Christ's Resurrection. Well this verse is making it more difficult for you guys to do that. You see, 1st Corinth 15 should be obvious.

Now if we combined this with 1st Corinth 15, then there is little to no wiggle room to assume that our Resurrection is different from that of Christ's.

Like I said before, the word "death" is only used once here. So what are you and Brandon gonna do? You can't say that the word "death" is figurative......for that would make Christ's death figurative as well.

The same word is used for both us and Jesus, and since your hermeneutics doesn't allow you to believe that a verse can have more than one interpretation. It looks like the only thing you can do is have one interpretation for the word "death".

So which is it gonna be? Figurative or Literal?

You can't say that our rising is "figurative" for that would make Christ's rising figurative too! So which is it gonna be? Figurative or Literal?

What are you gonna do Neb? How are you gonna interpret this verse? How are you gonna get out of this one?

I'm not a historic relativist, but I think that if we're honest to ourselves, there's no real way to know what everybody believed.

Do you know what the topic was about? Is it your view that all the listeners, readers, and hearers of the Apostles quickly forgot, misread, mis-understood, fell away, or had amnesia?

Scripture says:1.Jude 1:3"Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints."

But how could this be if the Apostles did a lousy job? How can the Faith be handed to the next generation of believers if they all fell away? If they all mis-understood? If they all fell into error or quickly somehow had amnesia?

Scripture says:1 Corinthians 11:19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

How can anyone in the generations after the Apostles be approved if they all were led astray, fell into error, mis-understood, fell away, or had amnesia?

Scripture says:1 John 2:27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

The "you" in this verse is "plural". Thus communal/community/church/gathering...etc.

How can the Holy Spirit lead the Church into all truth if all quickly fell away, fell into error, misunderstood, had amnesia? How?

In John Chapter 17, Jesus not only prays for his disciples, but he also prays for those who would believe in Him through them:

John chapter 17:"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

If we can believe in Jesus's prayer for His disciples, then why can't we also believe in His prayer for those who would believe in Him through His disciples?

If all were to fall away, be led astray, mis-understand, fall into error, or have amnesia, then how can they all be one with the Apostles, Jesus and the Father?

Quote:

The expansion of the church was explosive, much like it is today!!

If there is no real way to know what the past was like then how can you even say this? For how do you know? How can you know?

Quote:

But look at this forum--->Nobody on here can speak for every single Christian and on what he or she believes. You just can't do it. That doesn't mean that just because the bulk of cats on here are Reformed doesn't mean that means everyone in America or the known world is. That's foolishness.

I don't think anyone was claiming this. But since you brought this up. I will say:

How do we know what John Calvin tought? How do we know what Reformed protestantism is?

How can we know if noone can truely know anything about the past? How can we know that John Calvin was a real person? How can we know if the teachings of calvinism was truely passed on faithfully to the next generation of calvinists?

How can we know if no one can really know what the past was like?

What I am arguing is......surely we can know!

Quote:

So to say that oh, "Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement, yada, yada, yada all believed this..." doesn't mean that they constituted the majority (INSERT A WORD OF FAITH PASTOR IN THE NAMES I JUST MENTIONED AND THAT PROVES MY POINT).

How can it prove your point when the word of faith pastors didn't even exist back then? Are you trying to tell me that Creflo was preaching from 70A.D. to 200A.D.?

Are you telling me that Kenneth Copeland, Haggin, and Price were preaching and pastoring churches from 70A.D. to 200A.D.?

Saint Polycarp was a friend as well as a disciple of Saint John the Apostle.http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.htmlQoute:"But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time, a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles, that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me? "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles."Saint Irenaeus 180 A.D. Adv. Haer., III.3.4.

Saint Ignatius was also a disciple of Saint John the Apostle

Saint Clement of Rome may have known Saint Paul.....I have to review in order to make sure. And so these great men of God are in a totally different category than modern word of faith pastors my friend. I am insulted and a little angry that you would group them together.

Quote:

There could've been those who disagreed with them, but we don't have their writings to prove that they existed--->it doesn't mean they didn't exist, though.

They had some disagreements back then. If you read them you would of known that. And in regards to the nature of the Resurrection, yes, they did fight against the gnostics of their day, who like modern full-preterists and liberals (some liberals deny not only the virgin birth, but also a physical resurrection) denied that the resurrection was physical.

If you notice from the quotes below, the word "resurrection" is in reference to the whole person, and not just the spirit/soul alone. Therefore, the word historically.....in 2nd temple judaism and onward.... had a certain meaning. Now I know that in modern times, due to playing around with the meaning of words from the Biblical text, that the word can mean more than one thing, but in 2nd Temple judaism and onward....it meant a specific thing. And even in the Bible, in an Apostolic hermenuetical context, I believe it meant a "physical rising of the body".....since the Apostles are also part of the 2nd Temple Jewish tradition/context.

But in reference to the next generation of christians, they knew exactly what the belief was.....for their enemies tought it.

"You may have fallen in with some [Gnostics] who are called christians, but who do not admit this. For they venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham....and say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven. Do not imagine that they are Christians." Justin Martyr 160 A.D.

"[The Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.....Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death." Ignatuis 105 A.D.

"[The Gnostics] possess no proof of their system, which has but recently been invented by them. Sometimes they rest upon certain numbers; sometimes, on syllables; and still other times, on names." Irenaeus 180

"[The Gnostics] ....are very anxious to shake that belief in the resurrection that was firmly settled before the appearance of our modern Sadducees. As a result, they even deny that the expectation thereof has any relation whatever to the flesh....For they cannot but be apprehensive that, if it is once determined that Christ's flesh was human, a presumption would immediately arise in opposition to them that our flesh must by all means rise again. For it has already risen in Christ." Tertullian 210 A.D.

"The Apostle directs a similar blow against those who said that [B]"the resurrection was already past."[/b] Such an opinion do the Valentinians assert" Tertullian 197 A.D.

"On the otherhand, they say that carnal men are instructed in carnal things. Such "carnal men" can be recognized by their works and their simple faith. For they do not have perfect knowledge [gnosis]. The Valentinians say that we who belong to the church are such carnal persons. Therefore, they maintain that good works are necessary for us. Otherwise, it would be impossible for us to be saved. But as to themselves, they hold that they will be entirely saved for a certainty-not by means of their conduct, but because they are spiritual by nature." Irenaeus 180 A.D.

Quote:

Maybe they didn't write, but taught all the time. Maybe they wrote, but their writings were burned or lost. You don't know! And we won't ever know. That's the beauty of history!! The more you find out, the more you don't find out.

So some secret knowledge unknown to the known christian historical record.....until now? When I was arguing with Eternal, I mentioned this idea, and Kingneb denied that this was his view. His view is an organic development modal. You would have known this if you read the first post of the thread......as well as some of the later posts.

The Aposltes tought openly, and it was up to their hearers to hold on to what was tought. The Apostles didn't teach openly to one group of disciples/followers only to teach the opposite in secret to another group that nobody knows of. Some of the men you and I mentioned above was actually discipled by an Apostle. And so, the issue is about holding on to what was passed on. It's either they were wrong about our Resurrection from the grave or they were right about it. If they were right, then Kingneb, Brandon, Sam Frost, full-preterism, protestant liberals.....and ancient gnosticism were all wrong.

If the ancient christians were wrong, then the ancient gnostics, Kingneb, Brandon, Sam Frost, liberal protestants, and full-preterists were all right.

Also, I would like to add that muslims, pagans, liberals, and even some atheists will make similar claims about what they want to believe in and what they feel was "true christianity".

For the Muslims, they feel that Jesus never died on the cross, and the only "real" historical evidence they have in their favor are by some ancient gnostics. They also believe that what Jesus tought was what muhammad tought, but it was corrupted by later christians, but there is no historical evidence to support such a thing, and so they too can claim some secret wisdom or knowledge or total apostasy theory.

For some atheists, and pagans, they think Jesus never existed. There is no ancient historical evidence in known history for such a claim.

In the mid to late 18 hundreds the German highercritical/philosophical naturalistic scholar Bruno Bauer invented the argument that Jesus never existed. The idea is less than 150 years old. It was a naturalistic reconstruction of history. But with your argument, one can say, noone can truely say that such a claim is new for we don't know what every single person tought from the 1st century to 1850 A.D.

One could also say that we don't know if there were christians who tought that Jesus didn't exist and that it was all a myth. We don't know if they wrote anything or if they kept it to themselves or passed it along in secret.....until 1850 A.D.

Quote:

Now let's say that within the next 20 years, archaeologists finally find a scroll where some ancient preterists believed yada-yada... the argument that, "Preterism is not historic" is thus thrown out the window because you'd then have actual proof.

I'm sure there are liberal protestants, nonbelieving jews, agnostics, and atheists saying the samething about the "historical Jesus" and finding his bones in a grave somewhere....thus historic christianity being thrown out the window because you'd then have actual proof.

The truth is, such a thing will never happen, for if you were familiar with the writtings of early christians, then you would already know that the belief about our Resurrection from the dead that full-preterists and some liberals hold to was already tought by the ancient gnostics. And so, whatever they will find ....will be a gnostic work......just like the Gospel of Thomas, Barnabus....etc. are gnostic works......and so modern Archaeology already found it. But guess what?

The early christians wrote about those works and they told us that they were writtin by the gnostics......their enemies.....long before modern Archaeology dug it up. Infact, some thought that the early christians were lying about those books and the early gnostics......that is......until they found those books.

Quote:

So already the argument from antiquity is on shaky ground because we're constantly discovering things about the past. History is not merely an open-shut case like the Word of God. It just isn't.

Antiquity is not on shaky ground. What makes something on shakyground is "speculation"...."assumption"......etc.

If you are not speculating, then how can it be on shaky ground? Science keeps changing because of inherit "speculation"....assumptions in their predictions. And this is one of the reasons why the theory/philosophy of "falsification" was formed.

Quote:

The Israelites went years upon years without having the Law, and then one King happened to find it. The Israelites, in the Book of Judges, did what was right in their own sight for years and years. Many Jews believe and still believe that the Messiah hadn't shown up yet. Buddhism and Hinduism is ancient faith, doesn't mean they are more credible. Some pagan stories have similarities to biblical accounts and are older than Judaism, but it doesn't mean that Moses or any of the other OT writers copied them.

What you have to prove is that every individual jew.....including the lead/head prophet of the time was unfaithful. I believe Scripture talking about God having a Remnant.

In order for you to be correct, there either can be no Remnant, or the Remnant can't be known.....can't be visible or known in real recorded History until centuries later.

Can we know what Calvinism is? Can we know what Calvin tought and what the next generation of Calvinists tought? Or is it impossible to know?

Can we know what John Wesly tought and what the next generation of Methodists tought?Or is it impossible to know?

Can we know what what the early Azusa street Pentacostals tought and what the next generation of Pentacostals tought? Or is it impoosible to know?

You seem to be advocating some type of agnosticism when it comes to this.

Quote:

People can say Preterism or any other interpretation is new and alien, but really it isn't. Even the Bible states that there is nothing new under the sun and that what has been is what will be.

Parts of it are new while other parts of it are old. This is why I call it neognostic

The same is true when it comes to modern Arianism and modalism. There are parts of JWism that is the same as ancient Arianism, and their are parts that are a little bit different. There are parts of Oneness Pentacostalism that are the same as ancient modalism/Sabellianism, and there are parts that are a little different.